Is that not plug-ola-pay-ola though, which is illegal.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Future Publishing (Edge/PC Gamer/etc) freelance writer says they alter reviews, more
- Thread starter Visualante2
- Start date
Is that not plug-ola-pay-ola though, which is illegal.
He said, she said. How can I take any of this seriously? Give me some evidence. It's best to already take advise or news from people you don't know or can't trust with a grain of salt, but this could easily be a guy bitching on twitter about one incident, lying, misinformed, or telling the full truth. Until we see something more concrete who the hell knows?
LiveFromKyoto
Member
The torrent of effusive praise for GTA IV from all corners was the most obviously bought and paid for thing I've ever seen in the gaming industry. Future mags were far from alone on that one. It was kind of sickening the way most reviews for it read like raving fanboy ad copy, well beyond the usual measured praise that even mags and sites with generally enthusiastic tones put out. It became even more obvious once it hit the community and impressions were mixed.
One day somebody will write a good article about that one.
One day somebody will write a good article about that one.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
You are completely kidding yourself if you don't think this stuff happens constantly, and everywhere. Ask anybody who's ever worked in any corner of media - not just gaming. From TV to newspapers to industrial publications, advertisers get what advertisers want, or they're going to one of the other billion options they have to spend their ad budget on. It's not a question of if what he's saying is true, just how much of his own venom is mixed in with it.
EatinOlives
Member
Given how hyped reviews for GTA IV were and how shitty the game actually was, this is not surprising at all.
I've never seen faux-hype so blatant as that surrounding GTA IV.
plagiarize
Banned
as someone who counts GTA4 in their top five games of all time, i never really got what was blatantly bought about it's review scores, but anything like this is absolutely shady. still, i've always considered scores pretty much meaningless and only ever gone by the review text anyway. now i feel even more validated for doing that.
i'll consider in the future though, that when someone is loudly claiming that the text sounds like an X but the score is X+/-1 that their might be something fishy about it.
i'll still tell them to just ignore the score though.
i'll consider in the future though, that when someone is loudly claiming that the text sounds like an X but the score is X+/-1 that their might be something fishy about it.
i'll still tell them to just ignore the score though.
whalleywhat
Member
Well, the view that the game controls terribly and the cellphone is obnoxious and the fun sandbox elements from San Andreas are gone and what's left is largely a boring chore seems fairly prevalent around these parts, so you'd think that would be represented in at least a handful of the professional reviews.
KingHippo1967
Member
I love how everyone suddenly becomes an expert when "revelations" like this occur. I wonder how many of you saying "oh, but of course games journalism is corrupt" have any proof of this or how many of you are basing it on a few review scores you didn't agree with and the Kane & Lynch saga.
As someone who's been in the industry for many years and hasn't seen any of this widespread corruption everyone's so confident about here, it angers me that the reputations of good writers can be dismissed so easily. Maybe I've just been extremely lucky by not getting involved in any dodgy deals in the years I've been doing this, but even so it's unfair to tar everyone with the same brush as if to suggest "if you're a writer you're corrupt, plain and simple".
At the end of the day, in my experience, 99.99% of the time when you see a score that doesn't match up with the review it's down to bad reviewing, not any pressure from publishers. This Stanton chap is a perfect example.
From what I can gather this bad blood started when his Resident Evil 6 review was posted on CVG and people complained that the score was too high for the text, forcing the CVG ed to come out and defend it (not very well, I should add). Stanton can moan and moan all he likes about corruption and "bent" companies but the simple issue here (in my view) is that his review was shit in the first place.
The review ends with the words "Let's put it this way: we wouldn't buy it full price." Then he gives it 8/10. That's the real problem - the writer has received a free game and then forgotten to put himself in the reader's shoes and decide whether the game's value for money. You simply can't say "well, I wouldn't buy it" then give it such a high score. Stanton can moan all he likes about his former company but as far as I can tell at no point has he moaned about his Resi 6 review or its score being tampered with, which suggests it was unchanged and that, as a result, this "I wouldn't buy it, 8/10" nonsense is his own doing.
All I'm saying is it's unfair to read a review and instantly assume "that score's been paid for" when it seems a little too high. In my experience this rarely (if ever) happens and it's unfair to the hundreds or thousands of decent writers out there who are trying their best. Sometimes they'll get it wrong (I've given a few scores in my time that I look back on now and wonder what I was thinking), but 99.99% of the time they're at least being honest.
As someone who's been in the industry for many years and hasn't seen any of this widespread corruption everyone's so confident about here, it angers me that the reputations of good writers can be dismissed so easily. Maybe I've just been extremely lucky by not getting involved in any dodgy deals in the years I've been doing this, but even so it's unfair to tar everyone with the same brush as if to suggest "if you're a writer you're corrupt, plain and simple".
At the end of the day, in my experience, 99.99% of the time when you see a score that doesn't match up with the review it's down to bad reviewing, not any pressure from publishers. This Stanton chap is a perfect example.
From what I can gather this bad blood started when his Resident Evil 6 review was posted on CVG and people complained that the score was too high for the text, forcing the CVG ed to come out and defend it (not very well, I should add). Stanton can moan and moan all he likes about corruption and "bent" companies but the simple issue here (in my view) is that his review was shit in the first place.
The review ends with the words "Let's put it this way: we wouldn't buy it full price." Then he gives it 8/10. That's the real problem - the writer has received a free game and then forgotten to put himself in the reader's shoes and decide whether the game's value for money. You simply can't say "well, I wouldn't buy it" then give it such a high score. Stanton can moan all he likes about his former company but as far as I can tell at no point has he moaned about his Resi 6 review or its score being tampered with, which suggests it was unchanged and that, as a result, this "I wouldn't buy it, 8/10" nonsense is his own doing.
All I'm saying is it's unfair to read a review and instantly assume "that score's been paid for" when it seems a little too high. In my experience this rarely (if ever) happens and it's unfair to the hundreds or thousands of decent writers out there who are trying their best. Sometimes they'll get it wrong (I've given a few scores in my time that I look back on now and wonder what I was thinking), but 99.99% of the time they're at least being honest.
Is everyone saying they are corrupt?
The way I take it is like one poster put it before. These people aren't journalists and if they come from a major site then to some degree they are beholden to the publishers meaning that no matter how hard they try to be objective people will assume that they are influenced.
Nope. But really, no point in discussing this here. GAF has to drink his daily mix of generalization and moustache twirling to feel better.
All, of course, while modding watches a category get insulted. I wonder if you could get a free pass insulting whole other categories too. Feel like I'm missing on the fun!
Many don't. Just not on GAF.
In the case of reporting: I don't think game journalists are corrupt and I think it's very rare that there's any "backdoor deals", except for the harmful symbiosis between publishers, marketing and game journalists, which certainly influences actual reporting to various degrees.
In the case of reviews: I don't attribute the poor state of reviews to game reviewers being corrupt. I simply think most of them don't know any better, i.e. they are incompetent at critical reflection on the products they are supposed to assess.
KingHippo1967
Member
I would agree with this (I edited my post above while you were writing that and what I said essentially reflects what you said), except I would say "some of them" as opposed to "most of them". Most of the writers working for the reputable company-based sites (ironically, the ones that get the most criticism and allegations thrown at them) are very good at what they do - it only makes sense that the most popular sites want the best writers.
Not everyone's perfect though, so when a review is slightly off people tend not to think "that wasn't a great review this time", they instantly jump to the "you were paid by EA/Activision/Capcom to say that" reaction. Which is just nonsense.
Are you for real? We have "lazy developers" basically every other day. "Stupid/evil managers" as well. And then there's stuff like "all game writing sucks". And you think only reviewers suffer from categorical negativity? Way to see the whole picture.
michaelius
Banned
Now it's time where we act suprised and pretend what he is saying isn't obvious for anyone with brain? 
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Worst haiku ever
While there is no good defense for anyone involved with the Driv3r reviews, many of the people involved were simply lied to by Atari about the review build they received.
Atari told everyone that the review build was good enough for review but far from final in terms of bugs and polish, something that's not so uncommon when a review has to be written something like 2 months before the game's release because it's for a paper magazine.
Too bad the review build and the final product were basically the same thing.
Atari had a long history of pulling stunts like that, I especially heard horror stories about the 3 different review builds required for V-Rally 2.
atheistium
Member
I hope this doesn't screw Rich over for work from all publications. That'll be him out of the job...
SpinningBirdKick
Banned
An Edge 10 never did mean anything.
Sephiroth503
Member
Scores being a bit shady is nothing new.
I remember IGNs SC: Convinction Review I think it was, where the overall score was more than any of the individual parts, just to get it over a 9.
I remember IGNs SC: Convinction Review I think it was, where the overall score was more than any of the individual parts, just to get it over a 9.
atheistium
Member
This.
The amount of times I've written reviews and people moan that about the score in the comments and then talk about how something in the game is amazing and fail to read the bit where I mention how much I like that bit.
Or my DOA5 review where I was shouted up for commenting on the wank bank story line in the opening paragraph and people then shouted at me and said a girl shouldn't review it and that I was obviously going to hate the game.
I actually liked DOA5... the story mode is shit though and not just because it's a softcore porn with fighting instead of sex... but the fighting is fun.
Given the good 'ole boy state of gaming journalism (see: Justin McElroy's tweets to Patrick Klepek) this isn't likely to happen until every single poster here has one foot in the grave, tbqh.
Hehe. Review scores
Everyone arguing about these are just begging to be lied to over and over by PR people.
Read the text, read the text, read the text. Ignore the fucking scores.
I don't read reviews with scores attached to them anymore. But ignoring the review score might not necessarily help, just read IGN's GTA4 or Dead Space 2 reviews to see what I mean.
Hehe. Review scores
Everyone arguing about these are just begging to be lied to over and over by PR people.
Read the text, read the text, read the text. Ignore the fucking scores.
but then what are we going to put in neogaf OTs? words? Sir, you are a madman and a ruffian!
ice cold
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but from my experience: Whenever I come across multiple reviews for a particular game, the majority of them often ranges from either hyping the reviewed game like there's no tomorrow to maybe list some point-by-point description of the game, to casually spouting platitudes about the quality of the game, while still giving the game a more than moderate quality. Meanwhile, the ones that actually are critical and negative about a game are in the minority (and they are often the ones published later than the release date).
Hehe. Review scores
Everyone arguing about these are just begging to be lied to over and over by PR people.
Read the text, read the text, read the text. Ignore the fucking scores.
I did. And the many texts in question are awfully written, superficial, uncritical, and sometimes even reads like hype/fluff/PR pieces (read some of the Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect 3 reviews to give an example). Maybe I'm just more interested in texts that goes into depth with certain themes or aspects of a game, while critically reflecting on it, rather than the by-the-numbers review we usually see.
No, I'd rather not. IGN is a terrible site for anyone that cares to read reviews.
I absolutely agree. The number of sites that write anything worth reading can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
I Stalk Alone
Member
Misquoting can be deliberately done and easy to get away with when someone is speaking another language and the translator is paraphrasing or provided by the people conducting the interview. (either the interviewer may be the translator or someone else in their team) Misquote and then saying later that it was a "lost in translation" is a an easy way to get away with this. Helps when a lot of video games come from japan.
Is swag used to pressure reviewers? I remember MS used to send a big box of goodies to the reviewers. Should reviewers accept it as a perk or should they refuse it?
Maybe some kind of games journalism group could be formed with some ethical guidelines?Use the group's ID to know who does reviews ethically.
Maybe some kind of games journalism group could be formed with some ethical guidelines?Use the group's ID to know who does reviews ethically.
Graphics Horse
Member
Not Edge related but remember that Game Informer guy saying he had been 'pitched' a cover for Bayoneta 2 last year by another company (presumably Sega)? How does this pitching work exactly?
Seemed totally normal to me. First time I played GTA4 I was blown away, it looked like the best GTA game ever. Its problems became evident only after 10-15 hours, and I doubt many reviewers played that much. I still think it's the best GTA ever, but all the perfect scores are ridiculous in hindsight.
It's worth highlighting: That post also mentions that it was changed to a 10 from a 9. If we assume that the 10-from-Rockstar-pressure was entirely down to the magazine, the reviewer still gave it a 9 independently of that. The reviewer still pretty much liked the game!
I think I'd disagree with that, actually.
The pricetag of a game varies wildly over the lifetime of the game; from $60 at the top end, through discounts and steam sales to the likes of "Free with a PS+ subscription" or something. If you talk solely in terms of the value for money *at the time the review is made*, that fixes your review at a point in history; it's going to be irrelevant
As an extreme example: Let's say a game was released that was *hideously* overpriced. Hypothetically, $1000 for Geometry Wars. A good game - an *excellent* game - but for the vast majority of people, nowhere near worth that asking price.
A review should, be all means, comment on that. That's fine. But should it be factored into how they determine the merit of *the game itself*? "2/10, terrible value for money", or "8/10, a great game but not at this cost"?
Now, if, two months later, the price of Geometry Wars was massively reduced to its current pricetag. At this stage, which of those two reviews is a more useful indicator to a prospective buyer?
Prices fluctuate over time. In general (and yes, I'm aware there are exceptions!) the content of the product does not.
Edit: That said, I'm generally more in favour of just dropping review scores like Edge did for one experimental issue. Solves a lot of problems, but unfortunately the mass market wants those soundbites!
Black Republican
Member
Ether.
i enjoy
i enjoy
not_so_special
Banned
this surprises anybody? wellcome to reality guys
Given that the typical review scale is from 7 to 9 and even Edge's vaunted wider scale is basically 6 to 9 a 1 point bump is pretty big.
Edit:
What you wrote is true. However if an 8/10 is not worth buying for RE6 at full price presumably no other 8 game is either - which doesn't seem to be true.
flyinpiranha
Member
Insult the entirety of GAF while preaching about the downsides of generalizations. You're good.
OT: I don't consider these "meltdowns". This is just some guy blowing off steam due to frustration. Same shit happens in almost every workplace. The publicity of this age about how a single typed sentence can turn viral in a day is what he may need to consider. Even though past employers I've worked for have had their issues I would never speak publicly about it.
While is heart is probably in the right place, the tactics used should be questioned. Either way I like reading about this stuff. It's like the videogame version of TMZ.
yupHehe. Review scores
Everyone arguing about these are just begging to be lied to over and over by PR people.
Read the text, read the text, read the text. Ignore the fucking scores.
Yes it id. It went downhill starting with Halo 3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_(magazine)#Scoring
While that's true, my underlying point is that the original reviewer still liked the game; the bump up to a 10 didn't go monumentally against the flow of the reviewer's opinion the way people who think that the game is *very* poor are implying.
Yeah, that's something of a double standard as people have used different criteria to score their reviews, I'd imagine. Quantity of content is also a factor, of course - as, for that matter, is the *reader's* own criteria for what they regard as a fair price.
Once again, no review scores -> better reviews.
Snarfington
Member
I don't doubt most of this for a second, and anyone paying the least amount of attention would know as well. Depressing but unsurprising.
I disagree. The scores are simple for PR to manipulate. While they have something to concentrate on, people with sense can still see the real conclusion hidden in plain sight in the review text. Keep the scores and the metacritics to keep the PR away from the genuinely useful resource: the text.
Fixed.
